The Buff

Month: May 2016

UPDATE!! UPDATE!!

I MADE A MISTAKE!!!

I am always willing to admit when I have made a mistake, and I try and correct them right away. I was wrong!! The Judge in the Bolton case has NOT YET RULED on the Government’s Motion for Dismissal. I should have checked and I didn’t. But boy if he does rule in the Government’s favor…what a can of worms that would open up including Patriot Act Issues.

Another thing I need to point out for all of my new followers including those on the East Coast is that my writing style is a bit different than most Investigative Reporters so you can’t give my stuff a quick read, there are times I may emphasize a point by mocking a point. In Bolton’s case she did NOT release TOP SECRET STUFF, or NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION!! She was accused of sharing PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (PII), which is completely different than the Clinton case, and demonstrates the irony I’m trying to point out. We write and think differently out West!!!

______________________________________________

The release of the OIG Report regarding Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and other Secretaries of State requires me to speed ahead sooner than anticipated with Part Two of this series.

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.

________________________

After reading the various media reports and reviewing the OIG Report regarding Clinton and others, along with knowing there is an FBI investigation into the issue I couldn’t help but wonder if the FBI does find probable cause to believe Hillary Clinton committed a crime and do submit a case to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch for prosecution if AG Lynch will use the same reasoning she did in her failed effort to get the Bolton case dismissed right here in little ole Spokane. The reasoning Lynch used in the Bolton case is that the “Executive Branch” has “broad discretion” when it comes to access Secret Stuff and the Judicial Branch has no business sticking their nose in when it comes to National Security Information; “-under Title VII or otherwise- “. That theory didn’t fly with the Judge in the Bolton case, and I have a hard time believing it would fly in the Clinton case, should there be one, with both the Judiciary or most of the public.

_____________________________________

At his point the only documentation I have for the OIG Investigation of Ms. Bolton is the Investigative Summary linked below.

If this case isn’t settled and the full discovery process is actually completed I should have the full OIG Investigation of Bolton once that process is complete. It appears the investigation of Bolton took well over two years to complete. As you can see from the Bolton Investigative Summary the OIG found the following:

“Findings of Misconduct by an AUSA for Improperly Receiving, Viewing, Copying, and Sharing Personally Identifiable Information of Coworkers, and Lacking Candor with Supervisors “

So basically according to all the documents available Bolton received, viewed, copied, and shared information copied on a computer disc that contained the names, addresses, social security numbers, and salaries of her coworkers, and that she lacked candor with her supervisors.

“The investigation determined that the AUSA had previously received from EOUSA, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, salary and bonus information for USAO attorneys, with the attorneys’ names excluded.”

I’m going to put the “Lack of Candor” finding on hold at this point but if you read the litigation documents and compare the “Lack of Candor” issue between Clinton and Bolton IMO it really makes one wonder.

Keep in mind that an Independent Federal Prosecutor reviewed the Bolton case and found the charges made by Ormsby against Bolton were not warranted so we are left, at this point, with what the OIG came up with in the Summary. The OIG says Bolton was a bad girl because after she received Freedom of Information Act records regarding the disparity between the salaries in the local office of the US Attorney, which is PUBLIC information and took her well over THREE YEARS to receive. Those records did not identify who was making how much money or their gender so somehow, which is unclear at this point, but the government alleges there was some kind of a conspiracy between Bolton and the IT Guy Michael Eddy to get information that would demonstrate the gender salary disparity.

Why in the hell it would take over THREE YEARS to come up with salary information in a small office like the Spokane Office of the US Attorney is a big question, even though federal FOIA requests can take one or two years for response three years to me means someone really didn’t want Bolton to know.

The problem for Bolton is that IT Guy Eddy copied records from a government computer…not super-secret stuff as in the case of Clinton…but salary information of and personal identifiers of US Attorneys all over the US.

I’m going to offer two pieces of advice here for all of my readers which is based upon many, many years of experience with IT Folks.

1) Conspiracy aside, ALWAYS, and I MEAN ALWAYS, be very specific with ANY request you make to any IT person male or female or you are going to get so much crap you can’t use it will bog you down.

2) Learn and understand that IT Folks by their very nature think differently than most folks when it comes to data and what is important so you have to lead them and not follow them.

So the question I have is what happened to co-conspirator Michael Eddy? Was he charged with a crime, or disciplined in any way? The only thing I have been able to determine at this point is that Eddy may still be in Government Employ and may have been transferred to Hanford. I don’t know if he maintained his Top Secret Clearance but if in fact he did I hope someone is watching to make sure he doesn’t pass on information to the Russians or the Chinese, especially if he is in fact at Hanford. Now if he runs across data being hidden from the public regarding dangerous leakage…please have at it again Mr. Eddy and be a “Whistleblower” again.

What is really funny, at least to me, is that at the time Bolton received the Top-Secret salary information, she had a TS Clearance, because she on a daily basis dealt with not only records containing personal history information, but also personal financial information (IRS, Banks, Social Security etc.), and occasionally National Security Information. Yet she couldn’t be trusted with salary information.

I suppose the Government’s position would be that she couldn’t be trusted because she passed Top-Secret information to these people.

Well…the fact is most of the people on the above list do have, or did have at the time TS Clearances, and because the current record does not include full discovery including the two year OIG Investigation we don’t know if Bolton actually passed on Top-Secret Stuff like AUSA addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, etc….to anyone. Also of note is that Stephanie Van Marter is on the list. She is another AUSA in the local office that filed a complaint similar to Bolton’s with EEOC. That complaint was settled. If this goes to court perhaps we will all be able to read it like we have Bolton’s.

I haven’t read the FOIA that Bolton submitted to obtain salary information for the local office of the USAG, but in reading the litigation file I had to laugh at this:

As you can see Bolton was beefed by Ormsby back in 2011 when he first took office and found out that she had submitted a FOIA regarding salaries in the office. Keep in mind that the timeline demonstrates that she believed the “good ole boy network” was a fixture during Jim McDevitt’s Republican Appointed time in office so the case transcends party lines. Bolton may not have been aware of exactly how close McDevitt and Ormsby actually are despite the different party affiliations.

It sure looks to me like this “Admonishment” by Ormsby, which was not placed in Bolton’s personnel file and only surfaced in the defense of Bolton’s lawsuit had an agenda attached. I read Ormsby “Admonishment” letter the same way I have read a lot of similar letters; “Okay girl…you want to play…we will play!”.But you can decide for yourself. Here is where Bolton’s simple FOIA request ended up, and why it is being litigated.

Obviously Bolton was in a pickle as early as 2010, so what does one do when you are in the type of pickle she was in? Well the answer is you get more women involved! So at some point Bolton reaches out to three other women for help, and since all of those women have publically expressed their crusade for equality for women one would think they would be lining up to help out…right? Nah…not right… this a political thing for crying out loud. Bolton may have been better off seeking help from the women on the Spokane City Council.

Bolton covers the political bases by reaching out to the women who represent her at the Federal Level, Republican Cathy McMorris-Rogers, Maria Cantwell, and of course Patty Murray. Apparently her case is too much of a hot potato for all three and she gets no help at all. Perhaps Bolton wasn’t aware that Patty Murray was the one that nominated Ormsby and if gender inequality became an issue, as well as some of the dastardly conduct that has been alleged on the part of some folks in Ormsby’s office were to surface… see might not look too great.

After reading this on Patty Murray’s website I reached out to her for comment on my stories.

Senator Murray,

I am an Investigative Reporter located in Spokane. I do stories on local Criminal Justice Issues and as a result of my investigative reporting I have learned that you received contact from Ms. Jill Bolton, whom I am sure you know, is suing the US Government over an allegation of Gender Inequality, an issue you have great interest in. Since Michael Ormsby is the individual you nominated for our local US Attorney here in Spokane, and you received a request for help from Ms. Bolton prior to her being accused by USA Ormsby of several felonies I would really appreciate getting your comments on the situation, and learn about your interaction with USA Ormsby after Ms. Bolton reached out to you for help. I am doing a series of stories on this case and would very much like to have your comments regarding the issue as soon as possible.

I have reached out to several people involved in this case besides Patty Murray but have not yet received a response, when and if I get any response I will of course report them, but don’t hold your breath.

I have reached out to Bolton’s lawyer Mary Schultz who has rightfully taken the typical lawyer position in the interest of her client and will not respond to some of my requests, basically telling me that she doesn’t want to play her hand yet, which is understandable.

Lots more to come…I hope!!!

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!!

Share this:

Like this:

The anticipated “resignation” of City Attorney Nancy Isserlis has now been reported, and many speculate her resignation has a lot to do with the Cotton/Straub case and the possibility that there may have been some nefarious activity on her part including possible violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Washington State Lawyers.

But I can’t help but wonder if the case involving Lynden Smithson, one of her City Prosecutors may have also played into “her” decision. For those that don’t recall Lynden Smithson was in some way implicated in a large scale Federal Drug Case, and as seems to be SOP in the Condon Administration, again there is no available evidence to indicate Isserlis did one iota of investigation into Smithson’s involvement in the case.

This is another one of those cases where the Spokesman Review had the same information I had in Public Records Request Responses, but never did one lick of investigative reporting on the case and chose instead to hammer the hell out of the Furniture-gate case.

As is always the case these days, I’m still waiting for the Condon Administration to respond to my PRR requests…we shall see. It will be interesting to see if the City responds to my PRRs prior to September 5th, 2016…which is an important date in the overall scheme of things.

Share this:

Like this:

(**NOTE: I apologize for the misspelling of “Implications” in my previous headlines, admittedly my spelling and grammar are poor, and spell check doesn’t always catch my errors. I hope that any spelling or grammar mistakes I make in my stories won’t stop you from reading the stories which are intended to get at the truth. Thank you to those that brought the error in my ways to my attention.)

The best place to start, as it is in any case, is at the beginning of course. To be clear, this case began with this EEOC complaint by Bolton alleging gender discrimination in the local office of the United States Attorney General. The complaint evolved to where we are today in a civil litigation by Bolton against her previous employer, United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and our Government.

There are a number of key elements in Bolton’s complaint, but one that may stand out for some of you is the remedies she sought in here complaint:

I personally make note of the fact that her remedies do not include any type of monetary remedies for herself, or a specific demand for equal pay. The remedies she sought in her EEOC complaint appear to be an effort at establishing some type of structure and equality in the Office.

I can’t of course get into Bolton’s mind and determine if her end goal was monetary in nature rather than a legitimate concern for gender equality, but the evidence as far as the EEOC complaint is concerned tends to support a desire to clean-up the “good ol boy” control of the office.

Her remedies also requests a response to her FOIA regarding salary information for the office in which she worked. If you have ever done an US Government FOIA request you would know that depending upon the case it may take years to obtain a response from the Government. As we will see later her FOIA request was eventually honored in typical Government fashion and her FOIA request, among other things it would appear, lead to USA Michael Ormsby accusing Bolton of a number of serious Felony Crimes similar to those alleged against Hillary Clinton.

One of the things we all should consider when formulating an opinion regarding the Bolton case is that Bolton was NOT the only individual making an EEOC compliant, there were others alleging the same conduct by other gals in the office. If this case isn’t settled, which there is a high probability of, I’m sure those facts will be brought out in depositions and at trial.

I always enjoy reading the comments section of the SR when stories like the Bolton case become public. I have the advantage of knowing who all the people making comments are and in most cases involving criminal justice issues exactly what information has been provided to the SR, so I het a kick out of some of the comments made by people who know absolutely nothing about the case.

One of the things I like to do with my stories is attempt to get input from both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, in this case especially gals. The dynamics of this case are interesting, at least in my opinion, since we have a Obama appointed local US Attorney accused of gender discrimination at a time when gender discrimination is a hot topic, we have a Presidential Candidate being scrutinized by the FBI for National Security Breaches, we have a former local US Attorney appointed during the Bush Administration during who’s time the “good ol boy network” is alleged to have been an issue, and a Conservative Spokane County Prosecutor who’s name comes up in the lawsuit. So who better to reach out to than the Conservative Voice of the Spokesman Review, Sue Lani Madsen?

As fate would have it however my poor spelling did me in!

The more I get into this case the more interesting it becomes and this is Part One of a series.

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

Share this:

Like this:

Since I posted the teaser linked above a lot of folks have reached out to me with questions, primarily when will there be more. Most of those questions started coming in when I reached out to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch in an effort to obtain her comments and ask a few questions. HONEST people I am working on this but it takes some time, analysis of the documents, attempts to get interviews from both sides, and corroborating my sources, something other local media outlets are unwilling to do. The Spokesman Review for example was provided information about the Bolton case as well as similar EEOC complaints in the local US Attorney’s Office two years ago when knowledge was widespread in the local legal community, including the possible involvement of Senator Patty Murray in the case, something Jim Camden was supposedly going to look into.

This case could really get interesting since two local criminal justice figures keep coming up including Jim McDevitt the former local US Attorney now leader of the Spokane Police Department, and Larry Haskell our current County Prosecutor who worked for a short period of time for McDevitt in the US Attorney’s Office.

In reaching out to some of the individuals involved in this case so far the only one who has responded is Bolton’s lawyer Mary Schultz who has agreed to answer questions once I have them formulated. Not being a complete dummy and knowing Mary from back in the day one of the first things I did establish with her is whether or not she is still involved in Karate to the extent she used to be, her response was “I’m still living Karate.” Be assured this reporter will still ask my usual pointed and hard questions…just from a safe distance!

Some folks are wondering why I would reach out to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch for comment, indicating she will never talk to you. They may be right but I have to at least try since she stated the following in her attempt to get the Bolton case dismissed and I would guess silence the bad press. The USAG’s attempt to have the case dismissed of course failed.

____________________________

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch. Such claims are not subject to judicial review – under Title VII or otherwise – and as a result, they should be dismissed. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the following claims: (1) the USAO management’s inquiry into the security breach; (2) the referral of Plaintiff’s actions – obtaining, without authorization, Privacy Act protected personnel information of other Agency employees – to other DOJ offices and individuals, including, but not limited to, the DOJ OIG and DOJ security personnel; (3) the subsequent investigation into Plaintiff’s actions by the DOJ OIG, which substantiated the allegations against Plaintiff; (4) Plaintiff’s placement on paid administrative leave; (5) the suspension of Plaintiff’s TS security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI; (6) Plaintiff’s indefinite suspension without pay from her position as an AUSA; and (7) Plaintiff’s constructive discharge.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2016.

LORETTA E. LYNCH

United States Attorney General

s/ Ann E. Harwood

ANN E. HARWOOD

Special Attorney

Case 2:15-cv-00294-DWM Document 20 Filed 04/28/16

_________________________________

USAG Lynch clearly states in her filing that in her opinion based on the constitution the Executive Branch has broad discretion regarding suspension and eligibility for access to National Security Information.

________________________________

“Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch”

_________________________________

The question I would ask USAG Lynch, should be pretty obvious… “How does your position in the Bolton Case correlate to the Hillary Clinton Case?” I would of course have a number of follow-up questions.

Hopefully that explains why I made the effort. I have this feeling that USAG Lynch really doesn’t have much knowledge of this case. The odd thing about this case is that it appears, at least at this point, to be the “good ole boy” network versus the gals stepping up and complaining about it, yet nearly the entire case is in the hands of gals, Jill Bolton the plaintiff, Mary Schultz her lawyer, USAG Loretta Lynch the defendant, and Anne Harwood the USAG’s lawyer…. IRONIC TO SAY THE LEAST!